NSTD.3:5.4 - Connecting to the relevant subject method
A connector does not settle the relation it expresses. “Because” can introduce a physical cause, a reason for acting or a mathematical dependence. Identify that relation first; open the corresponding FPF or subject method when the relation itself needs further work.
Suppose a design comparison says a proposed modular split removes one required hand-off between teams, but sends exceptional requests through a shared interface. The narrative can explain that change in dependency. Less routine coordination work is a prediction from the design; its realized cost remains unknown until observed. If observations are available, report the supported result rather than automatically weakening it to a prediction.
A science story can say that an experimental result “forced” a revised hypothesis only if the source line supports that constraint. Often the honest relation is weaker: the result made one hypothesis less useful, exposed a tension, or suggested a new mechanism to test. NSTD.3 keeps the tension narratable while preventing the narrative from closing evidence that the source left open.
A live match commentary may connect a late midfield movement with lost possession. State the observed sequence separately from that provisional tactical explanation, and identify what the replay could resolve.
In a homotopy explanation, a deformation story may help learners track invariance, but it is not a proof by itself. The support record says which formal relation the story illustrates, what the learner should reconstruct, and where analogy must return to definitions or proof-status boundaries.
Use rewrite diagnostics when a sentence sounds good but may overclaim.
| Initial sentence | Source-support question | Replacement selected by the answer |
|---|---|---|
| “The failed experiment revealed the true mechanism.” | Does the source identify the mechanism, rule out a prediction, or merely report a discrepancy? | If it reports only a discrepancy, state the measurement and prediction that disagree and leave the mechanism unresolved. If it establishes the mechanism, retain that conclusion and its supporting scope. |
| “The module split solved coordination.” | Does the source show a changed dependency, predict a cost effect or observe one? | For the proposed design above: “The split removes one required hand-off and routes exceptional requests through a shared interface. Its effect on coordination time has not yet been measured.” A measured reduction would warrant the corresponding observed claim. |
| “The character had no choice.” | Which alternatives do the fictional premises actually exclude? | If the scene establishes that both exits are locked and no other escape is available, say “With both exits locked, the character remained in the room.” If an alternative remains possible, describe the choice or pressure rather than inventing necessity. |
| “The proof idea is that loops remember holes.” | Which formal restriction or invariant does the image represent? | If the supplied definition requires a loop to remain in the punctured plane, explain that a deformation cannot pass through the missing point. Return to the argument for any claimed invariant; the image alone establishes no theorem. |
| “The team was outplayed because the press failed.” | Is this an observed cause, a provisional interpretation or a later supported analysis? | If the live source records late midfield movement followed by lost possession but no established cause, retain those observations and present the tactical connection as a hypothesis. Later analysis can justify a stronger claim; tentative wording is not compulsory once that support exists. |
These are conditional repairs, not substitutes to copy without their premises. For a supported strong case, suppose the mathematical source defines f(x) = 2x and the task supplies x = 3. “Under this definition, f(3) = 6” follows directly; weakening it to “perhaps 6” would lose the supported result. If the source instead contains only an input-output observation of 3 and 6, keep that observed pair and leave the general doubling rule unresolved. The words become no weaker or stronger than the supplied relation warrants.
If the repair makes the narrative less exciting, that is not automatically a defect. The repair preserves the source relation. Engagement can be rebuilt later through NSTD.5 around the safer relation instead of by restoring the overclaim.
Optional notes for more involved comparisons:
NarrativeEventMechanismSupport@ArchitectureTradeoff:
sourceStructureKind: architecture-like and mechanism-like trade-off
requiredReaderReconstruction: which required hand-off the proposed design removes, where exceptional requests go, and why an observed time saving remains unknown
eventOrMechanismModel: ordinary requests no longer cross the removed hand-off; exceptional requests still require shared-interface coordination
dependencyOrConstraintRefs: before-and-after dependency diagram; rule selecting exceptional requests; shared-interface responsibility
supportingBasis: the stated design supports the dependency change and a conditional cost prediction; observed cost would need observations
uncertaintyOrUnknownRefs: realized coordination time unmeasured; other candidate designs outside this sketch
reconstructionTaskRefs: reader distinguishes the design change, remaining exception work and unmeasured cost effect
sourceReturnCondition: consult the dependency comparison for the design claim and observations for an actual cost claim
NarrativeEventMechanismSupport@HomotopyAnalogy:
sourceStructureKind: proof-like and definition-like dependency
requiredReaderReconstruction: distinguish intuitive deformation image from formal equivalence relation
eventOrMechanismModel: path deformation story used as analogy for invariant tracking
dependencyOrConstraintRefs: formal definitions; examples; counterexamples; theorem prerequisites
causalUseOwnerRef: none unless a causal learning claim is made
uncertaintyOrUnknownRefs: analogy may fail outside named examples
reconstructionTaskRefs: learner states where analogy stops and where proof returns
sourceReturnCondition: formal source statement for proof or exercise use
NarrativeEventMechanismSupport@LiveCommentary:
sourceStructureKind: live event stream with provisional interpretations
requiredReaderReconstruction: observed event vs inference vs prediction vs official correction
eventOrMechanismModel: state updates and tactical hypothesis under uncertainty
participatingHolonOrRoleRefs: teams, players, officials, broadcast or event source roles when needed
uncertaintyOrUnknownRefs: off-camera events; later telemetry; official review
reconstructionTaskRefs: listener can say what was observed and what was inferred
sourceReturnCondition: official record, recording, statistics, or telemetry
These sketches illustrate information that can matter in different cases. Use only the fields needed to repair or compare the passage. A missing field does not by itself make a coherent account inadequate.